Desert Dave Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 While we are waiting for SuperTed to roar clanking and smoking into Low Countries... It sounds as if everyone is presuming that Britain has a poor operating platform at the start of the game. I would strongly disagree. Consider -- IF Britain does indeed blockade Norway -- and so far, many strategists seem to conclude that they would be endangered by this, but they may very well successfully counter that German Air Fleet with their Carrier planes, AND deny landing of one or two transports (who knows? one that is damaged or sunk might be a HQ unit, costing upwards of 450 MPP), AND so cripple the small Kriegsmarine, that any future Sea Lion is effectively thwarted at the outset. Then, Britain could have many choices -- borrow the Army from Canada for dispatch to Egypt, and cause the Italians to think twice about venturing out of Libya. Remember, by now we also have Wavell in (or ready to debark) Egypt. Finally, having repaired the incidental damage in the battle of Norway (and possibly? securing Bergen for themselves) they are free to patrol the convoy lane from Canada to Liverpool. Britain is a potential MAJOR PLAYER :cool: and need not merely await the arrival of resource rich USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Sure Britain is a major player, but what makes them so interesting to play is that they start out quite unprepared for a war. The Norway strategy you propose is a really big gamble. For rather than protecting the British fleet, the English carrier is in high danger to be lost itself. Remember that the Germans can put all their airfleets on the "unsinkable" carrier Denmark. And these airfleets have much more planes available than any single carrier (I recall that even the IJN flagship carrier Kaga could only host somwhat more than 80 planes). I'm sure people will test this in PBEM games. Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 10, 2002 Author Share Posted May 10, 2002 We are thinking about a sudden strike, and not hanging around to receive too many counter blows. And IF we let one transport land, then we are only INTERVENING on behalf of a grateful Norway when we land in Bergen. Also, we MIGHT have included that commando/marine unit to disrupt German air fleets (presuming they would risk more than one in northern Denmark) and cause Germany to decide IF they want to contest for Bergen... thereby delaying? the thrust into Low Countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Sounds great! But according to a famous saying I once coined: "No plan survives contact with the enemy." (... Hey, what do you mean with "that was someone else"?! ) Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Wow Straha, that was you? :eek: Anyhoo, look at all the options/possibilities for VERY EARLY war! This game is going to get a LOT of play time! It would be pretty frightening committing so much of the British force to an early battle. Part of the Navy is bad enough, but when you start committing some of the troops, to be possibly trapped and completely destroyed... you're risking quite a lot early on! Its going to be exciting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 The potential loss of the Brits in France in 1940 may be more devastating in SC than 3R, which would have some more historical realism. In 3R, the BEF only cost 3 BRPs, so what if they're lost. What is the cost difference in SC between rebuilding a unit from scratch and replacing losses? There should be a disadvantage if units are destroyed, hence an incentive to evacuate the battered BEF from the continent and not risk their loss someplace else like Norway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 What is the cost difference in SC between rebuilding a unit from scratch and replacing losses? There should be a disadvantage if units are destroyed, hence an incentive to evacuate the battered BEF from the continent and not risk their loss someplace else like Norway.Very good point! Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted May 10, 2002 Share Posted May 10, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What is the cost difference in SC between rebuilding a unit from scratch and replacing losses? There should be a disadvantage if units are destroyed, hence an incentive to evacuate the battered BEF from the continent and not risk their loss someplace else like Norway.Very good point! Straha</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Thanks, SuperTed. This should (again) put our minds to rest. If we would not desperately crave another piece of your AAR, that is ... Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Not a big deal here but a minor correction, each reinforcement point will cost 5% of the total current production cost of a unit. So yes there is definitly an advantage for trying to hold on to your units and this formula also takes into account any changes to the price of units due to research. So there will be some variety and an advantage to develop 'Industrial Production' technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Originally posted by Straha: Thanks, SuperTed. This should (again) put our minds to rest. If we would not desperately crave another piece of your AAR, that is ... StrahaStraha, I just started wrting about how beautiful the streets of Paris were in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Originally posted by Hubert Cater: Not a big deal here but a minor correction, each reinforcement point will cost 5% of the total current production cost of a unit. So yes there is definitly an advantage for trying to hold on to your units and this formula also takes into account any changes to the price of units due to research. So there will be some variety and an advantage to develop 'Industrial Production' technology.Hubert, Thanks. I assumed there was a formula in there somewhere, but I had some rough figures in my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 The increased cost of building new units versus sustaining existing ones is an excellent idea. Combined with the HQ experience bonus, this looks like it will make the player think twice about suicidal attacks, and moving his HQs about the map like they were amorphous cogs in a machine. I can see myself getting attached to veteran formations that do well, and trying to keep a winning HQ/Unit team together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Between the cost difference and loss of unit experience, there's definitely incentive to protecting your units. Very good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Thanks. I assumed there was a formula in there somewhere, but I had some rough figures in my head. Yeah don't mind me, I get a little over the top on details sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperTed Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Originally posted by Hubert Cater: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Thanks. I assumed there was a formula in there somewhere, but I had some rough figures in my head. Yeah don't mind me, I get a little over the top on details sometimes </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts